Bible Study What is Love?
by The Righterzpen
Summary: Ever read those verses in 1 Corinthians 14 and wonder what the words actually mean? Love is patient, kind, long-suffering, not rude, envious ect. Have you ever wondered what that love actually looked like manifest in the life of Christ? A not so good experiance in a church I once attended sent me on a quest to really understand what these words mean. So thus, here are my findings


_This study originated out of a letter I'd once written to the pastor of a church. The personal context and original reason for the letter has been edited out, but the study itself and the examples used in the letter were not edited out. Thus is why there are some odd connotations in this study like "...(a church I once attended)..." _

_As with any other study posted, all the number notations are from the Strong's Concordance_

* * *

**I Corinthians 14**

_**King James Translation:**_

**(1) "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I've become a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. (2) And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains and have not charity, I am nothing. (3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed**_** the poor**_** and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity it profits me nothing.**

**(4) "Charity suffers long, and is kind; charity envies not; charity vaunts not it's-self, is not puffed up, (5) does not behave it's-self unseemly, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; (6) rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; (7) bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."**

**Greek Words Translation:**

Now as far as the Greek words go, I started with verse 4. The reason I did so is because in verses one through three, charity is to be the motivator behind the actions (speaking with tongues, prophecy, understanding, knowledge, faith, bestowing goods, and giving (ones) body to be burned); and what charity consists of is what's listed in verses four through seven. Put a little more simply: Charity is the essence of God since God is love. The actions of a person indwelt by God are motivated by charity. The definition(s) and or components of charity are as follows: (verses 4 - 7).

One thing I noticed in studying the Greek words themselves are that these definitions and/ or components of charity are not necessarily (in and of themselves) actions, but rather attitudes. In these definitions of charity we can actually see what motivated Jesus to behave the way that he did, even when that behavior didn't seem "copesettic".

* * *

**Charity suffers long:** The Greek words here mean **"to be slow to rush at"**. Now the connotation of the individual components that make up this Greek word mean to be slow to rush at judgement. In the case of Jesus it showed it's-self in the fact that he never pronounced the sentence upon any individual even though it may have been clear to them that he was angry or displeased. For example - all judgement having been given to the son - if he'd told the leaders of Israel to "drop dead", they literally would have.

So what this word means to us is that charity is slow to rush at the conclusion of someone's eternal fate based on what we see. We certainly should maintain the ability to discern between what's truth and error and many times it is easy to see by a sinful life, that an individual is unregenerate; but what that person's eternal fate will be, we leave for God to judge, for He's the only one that really knows because nothing is hid from Him.

* * *

**Charity is kind:** Here is another interesting word, since it doesn't mean charity is icky sweet nice to everyone; obviously because Jesus was not "nice" to everyone. He called several Pharisees "hypocrites" and "children of the devil", he physically threw merchandisers out of the temple and on more than one occasion, he became irate with the disciples. No, charity is **of a kindly use to another**. One of the roots of this word means to be employed by, or in servitude too. Jesus said that he came as a servant, not as one who looked to be served. So, as he said: If you are to be one of my followers, be servants and "be of a kindly use" to each other.

The flip side of this of course is that if we need someone's "kindly use" to us, we need to let that be known. Jesus also made requests of other people. He asked the woman at the well for water, he sent disciples to prepare for the Passover. These were instances when he needed help, because he was too exhausted or preoccupied to be able to do it for himself.

* * *

**Charity envies not:** The word to envy in this case is pretty straight forward. It means **"to boil over with angry desire"**. Notice that the words do not say that charity does not desire anything on it's own behalf. Jesus had wants and needs; all of which he'd made known to the Father. The only difference was that Jesus never "boiled over angrily" when his request wasn't met. He accepted the fact that what ever prayer he had that wasn't answered with a "yes" was not answered that way for the sake of his own good, and or the purpose that he set out to accomplish.

Simple common everyday example we all encounter. Jesus here, a young man (Joseph has already died) and the town carpenter. One of his neighbors comes over and says, I need your help to fix my roof. Several of "the guys" go over to work on the roof. Jesus looks up at this house and notices it's two stories. He says to himself: Boy that's awfully high! So he says a prayer that no-one gets hurt on this job. They all dawn the ladders and fix the roof. Everything went well, Jesus is about to get down when all the sudden: here comes the dog chasing the cat! Well, you can guess what happens and ours truly hits the ground!

Is Jesus "boiling over with anger" because his prayer wasn't answered? No, this was a typical accident that befalls the common lot of man. Jesus never expected that he would be exempt from the natural laws that govern the rest of the universe. I may be God incarnate, but that makes no difference to gravity; I'm still gonna hit the ground as hard as Joe! So Jesus is laid up in bed a couple of days with the first century's rendition of the pain killer Codeine; (a good strong bottle of wine) and a couple of days later he's back in the shop working on some simple stuff. Remember that before Jesus was baptized and started performing miracles; he appeared to be just and ordinary man laboring the way we all do.

* * *

**Charity vaunts not it's-self:** This one in the Greek is a little more complicated, but not too much so. It means** "to pierce through of it's-self**". Keeping in mind that these are definitions of components of attitudes of God; what would it mean for Jesus to "pierce through of himself? Did Jesus ever interject his thoughts, feelings or will upon other human beings even to their own dislike?

The answer to this is; of course he did! The Pharisees and the money changers are two examples I've already given, but also think of what life was like before he started his ministry. Jesus had at least 6 other siblings that are mentioned in the Scriptures. Hypothesizing that Mary birthed a total of seven children and none of these pregnancies were twins; we can guess that Jesus was probably between 14 and 17 years old when Joseph died.

_I'm taking an average of 2 to 2.5 years between births based on the fact that in that society they breast feed children until they were three. 6x2=12 and we know that Joseph was still alive when Jesus was 12 on account of the story of Jesus in the temple. 6x2.5=15 and 6x3=18 and we know Joseph had to have been around at least long enough for the last child to be conceived. Now who bore the burden of rearing these children in the father role once Joseph died? Jesus of course. _

Now my point being that in order to raise children there are times you must "interject" your will upon them.

So, our question now becomes; if this "piercing through" of Jesus wasn't in regards to his behavior towards other human beings, what was it in regards to? The only other possibility is his position in the Godhead. Did he ever "pierce through of himself" upon the other persons in the Trinity? Of course not. Jesus never imposed his own human will (being the second Adam he had a human will) on what had been agreed upon (prior to Jesus's own incarnation) by the three "pieces" of the "pie" called God.

For example; taking into account Jesus's human will and his freedom to make choices as to what he wanted to do or not do. In Matt 26:52-54 Jesus says to Peter that he could at any moment obtain 12+ legions of angels in order to protect him from those who came to arrest him. This shows his own choice to be crucified. If he hadn't made that decision, there would be no redemption for sinners.

"_Plan B" Hypophysis: _

Surprisingly enough though, I think Jesus had another "out" at his disposal that was also left up to his own discretion. We see it eluded to in Matthew 19:12 with Jesus's comment about being a eunuch. The second half of that statement in Matthew "..made himself a eunuch in order to reign in the kingdom of God." gives us a clue as to what his other "out" would have been. Notice the phrase doesn't say "in order to obtain the kingdom of God" or "in order to abide in the kingdom of God" No, it says "in order to **reign** in the kingdom of God." So whether or not Jesus remained a eunuch (got married) or didn't; he'd never cease to loose a place in the kingdom.

This "plan B" (as I'll call it); I think is actually eluded to in parts of the Scripture where God either destroys (the great flood) or threatens to destroy entire nations or everyone on the planet; with the exception of one man. Genesis says that "Noah found grace in the eyes of God"; but notice it was only Noah at that point, not his children. Also God said to Moses upon the giving of the law, when He saw that Israel was making the golden calf, that He'd destroy the nation and start over again with just Moses. Notice in both cases Noah brought his family onto the ark and Moses advocated for the survival of the nation. Here these two men are a picture of Christ.

Now if Jesus had opted for "plan B" obviously he would have had to fine (or otherwise obtain) a wife; but with no redemption, it would be impossible to find a woman who was suitable. Any daughter of the first Adam would have to be redeemed of her own sin in order to get into heaven; but for that redemption to be enacted upon, the Holy Spirit would need to be poured out. Jesus specifically stated that the Holy Spirit couldn't come until he'd gone back to heaven; so, his wife would have had to wait alone on earth for the completion of her salvation.

To throw another monkey wrench into the works, we'd have a serious problem if the two had any children. The children would have been sinless and being of the seed of their father, who was God, their presence would have prevented the redemption of their mother - since Jesus would still have been present by the production of his own children.

The more likely scenario would have been that (just as in the case of the first Adam) a suitable "helpmate" would have to have been created for Jesus. Being created in the same manner the first Eve was, this "second Eve" would have been incorruptible just as her husband. Likewise., all children they produced would have been just like them. So in effect there would have been two races of people on this planet; the righteous and the wicked - and the literal children of God would have been in constant danger of being murdered by the rest of us.

Once time ended and a new place of residence had been created for Jesus, his wife and all their progeny, Jesus wouldn't "reign" in the kingdom because all the other inheritors of that kingdom would be just like him. I postulate that time wouldn't have continued much after all the heirs were killed, since there would be no real reason for it to. The only reason time continues today is for all the remainder of the elect to be brought into the kingdom.

Obviously we know Jesus didn't opt for "plan B" (as I've called it) although it would have been much easier and far less painful. Part of the reason, I believe was because of all the people Jesus had encountered along the road of his life. These people were ones he knew and loved and he didn't want to loose them. The lure of having a wife and his own children was not strong enough to deter him from the plan to redeem people. He made the choice not to forsake those he loved (including all of us he'd never met in the flesh) for what ever satisfaction he would have gotten out of "plan B". Besides, "plan A" brought much more glory to God and this is what Jesus wanted in his desire "not to pierce through of himself". Jesus's decisions illustrated the perfection of this love; especially since "plan A" was solely his choice to complete.

So, what does "not vaunting it's self" mean in regards to us? Simple, we (like Jesus) never impose our human will upon God. How do we not do that? That answer comes next in the following phrase in Corinthians.

* * *

**Charity is not puffed up:** This one is a little more difficult because the word "puffed up" here is actually derived from an agricultural term meaning "to grow". It is combined with another word meaning "to blow upon". It depicts an image of someone standing over a plant, blowing on it to try to get it to grow faster; to **"blow upon to get to grow"**. Now in the terms of agriculture that's pretty silly. A plant is only going to grow at the rate it's meant to grow; the set timetable in which God has for it and blowing on it isn't going to make it grow faster!

Now, does this apply to that line of thought that says: "Be careful, your getting "puffed up" if you think you know something!" Should we always assume that we really know nothing, even concerning a topic we've studied? There are experts in any field and if we are having a problem that we can't resolve, there is nothing wrong with consulting those experts and taking their advice.

I have a disabled child. He was 2&1/2 years old and couldn't talk, so I consulted a speech pathologist. She worked with him, demonstrating what to do and how to teach him to learn how to speak. She knew all this because she'd studied for the last 30 years on how language patterns it's-self in the brain. I'm grateful for her expertise in education and speech because I couldn't help him. That was beyond my ability, because it was something outside of my knowledge base. Now what a travesty it would be if this woman assumed she didn't know how to help my son, based on a line of thinking that said she should never assume that she really knows anything, for if she does she might become "puffed up"!

Taking all this into consideration, we can see there were plenty of things that Jesus knew that he was not ashamed of knowing. The people admired his sermons because he taught as one having authority and not as the Scribes and Pharisees. They were always "learning" but never "learned" and maybe that was do to their assumptions of man's capacity.

For example: I've heard people say "You don't understand the virgin birth." or "You can't understand the Trinity!"; but is that a true statement, or is it just something they say because they are frustrated by the topic? The Scriptures say these are mysteries and that they are hard to understand, but never says they are beyond human capacity to grasp. We know this is true because Jesus's human mind was able to "grasp" the Trinity and the nuts and bolts that made up the material of his earthly brain were no different than the nuts and bolts that make up the material of our earthly brains. So, this topic aside: what does "puffed up" really mean?

Returning to the agricultural definition, the answer is really quite simple. We are not going to force ourselves to grow in the grace of God any more than we could force a plant to grow by blowing on it. Jesus learned to be patient and not to push himself beyond the place of maturity that he actually was. We need to learn to trust the process in the same way.

* * *

**Charity does not behave it's-self unseemly**: Here is probably one of the more difficult phrases to unravel. It's often been interpreted as charity is not "rude" or "does not behave in a manner that's not culturally appropriate". It's said to "follow the normal expectations of any given situation obeying what's "considerate" to the people in any give group". The example applied [at one church I'd once attended] was concerning people being late, or children disrupting an adult Sunday school, or worship service.

This particular phrase and it's interpretation is actually the one that sent me on this study. When I looked at the interpretation and how it was laid forth, it doesn't apply at all to Jesus and how he behaved. There were many people he was quite rude to and often times he did things that were considered culturally inappropriate and even taboo. He talked to strange women, let them touch him, healed on the Sabbath, ate with Roman citizens etc. He was "inconsiderate" to the establishment by doing or saying things that made them uncomfortable.

As far as "late" goes, they didn't have clocks or watches in which to keep time so (as Paul said to the Corinthians) it was to be, that everyone would wait until all those who were expected to come showed up. As mentioned in a previous church service [of this one church I'd once attended]; this is the way it's done in Africa and maybe that's why the Africans have a much stronger fellowship bond than do most churches in America. Incidentally, "disruptive children" made Jesus irate at the disciples who forbid the parents to bring them.

So, now that we see Jesus obviously was not the paragon of proper social behavior that this phrase is often interpreted as meaning: what does it really mean? The expression is actually derived from two words, one meaning "to hold shape" and the base meaning "to dismember". The base "to dismember" implies cutting up an animal to be used in sacrifice or as food. The literal translation means **"to hold shape and not become dismembered"**. This is why it's translated as "not behave unseemly", but as pointed out earlier; it really has nothing to do with following cultural "norms".

Putting this into a little different context we see that though Jesus "upset the apple cart", he always "held his shape" and never "dismembered" himself. He was consistent and predictable in his behavior. In all social engagements, no matter who he was interacting with; Jesus "held his shape". He was not fickle and did not change his behavior to meet the social expectations of any particular group. He was "himself" and remained "individualistic"; acting in accordance to what was truthful and what was right. He wasn't a "people pleaser" nor was he particularly concerned with what people thought of him. His actions were always intended to test whether people loved truth more than their own traditions and what they were culturally familiar with.

One other issue of behavior [I've seen] associated with this passage is a woman's consideration of how she's dressed in regards to it's effect on others. Modesty is the topic of a whole other study and needless to say; the definition of modesty varies greatly from society to society. Whether or not there is actually some defined parameter outlined in the Scripture, I don't really know; it's not something I've studied.

In regards to Jesus though; I do know of all the woman he ever encountered in the flesh, it's never recorded that any received instruction as to how he thought they should dress. The Syrophenician woman was from Greece and the style of dress that was typically acceptable as appropriate in her culture would have been considered provocative in Hebrew culture. None the less, she showed up in front of Jesus wearing her Greek clothing. We know this because the disciples identified her as a Greek by what she had on. Type and style of dress was often used as identifiers of subcultures with in the Roman Empire.

Now taking this into consideration and looking at what happened as is recorded in the gospels, it would have been very easy for Jesus to be offended by her attire. Typical Greek style for women was either "V necked" or "boat necked" with clasps that held the garment together at the shoulders. Mark 7:24 records that "she came and fell at his feet" and it was more than quite probable (with her being on the ground and him standing) that as soon as he looked down at her, he would have been able to see down the front of her gown. Even so, we notice that he never makes any comment about her clothing! Now, why is that?

There are actually two reasons. The first is that Jesus put enough thought and prayer into the complexities of the interactions between men and woman to understand that any reaction he may have had, (physically or otherwise) to a situation that would have caught him off guard, (such as this); was not sin. This is why he said "Any man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." The sin is not to "look upon a woman" the sin is in "looking upon her to lust after her". Sin is measured by intent of an action or reaction, not by the action or reaction it's-self.

Jesus's statement here concerning what is adultery, underscores the fact that he understood the basic drives of his own biology were inherently implanted as part of the make up of the created order. The problem of course came in the choices of what one did with their biological "birthrights". Jesus knew this even though the medical knowledge we have of reproduction was not afforded to him. He didn't need that medical knowledge; all the reasons were explained in the first chapters of Genesis.

_The phrases in Genesis 1 "And God saw that it was good" are all of a Hebrew word that means "pleasant" or "pleasing". God was pleased with what He'd created. It's the same Hebrew word "Sarah was pleasing to look upon". The understanding we can reach of this, is that the inherent good pleasure of God He exercised in creating this wold; He'd instilled in the creatures themselves as part of the reproductive process. Insurance of the continuation of all the species is an obvious outcome of God's decision to do this, but I also think the choice He made here can tell us created beings something about the inherent goodness of His nature._

The second reason Jesus was not offended by her or her attire was because he could readily perceive by her answer to his calling her a dog, that her sole concern was the welfare of her daughter; not her appearance or the cultural prejudice with which she was met. There is a similar story relayed in Matthew that speaks of a Canaanite woman coming to Jesus who receives the same treatment. She responds in the same manner as the Greek had, and too this we find a very interesting phrase in the Greek: "and he (Jesus) answered and said..."

The phrase "answered and said" seems a little redundant until we look at the Greek word "answered" and see what it means. It comes from a root word meaning to "stop, pause, step away" and a Greek add-on that connects a process of thought to the "stopping, pausing or stepping away". What this really means is that these answers by these two women made Jesus actually have to stop and think a minute. He had to stop and step away from a certain line of thought and realize that something else was coming into the picture.

Before these two women's encounters with Jesus, he'd dealt only with Jews or proselytes to Judaism and now he has these people who are totally outside of the Hebrew covenant, (with no intention of "becoming a Jew") coming to him for assistance. This was an extremely unusual cultural phenomenon to him, because all through out the Hebrew culture and history - all those who reaped the benefits of the covenant came under the jurisdiction of the Hebrew law.

Jesus could see by their responses that the wisdom of these woman was not a worldly wisdom even though by all external markers they appeared extremely worldly. Jesus realized pretty quickly that these woman were instruments sent by the Father bearing a lesson that Jesus may have understood intellectually, but was about to be thrust into real life practice; specifically that he was to be the redeemer for the elect of Earth, not just the elect of Judaism.

* * *

**Charity seeks not her own:** This one is relatively easy to understand also. It's pretty strait forward. It means to "**search for on behalf of ones self"**. The implication is that one performs a task solely for what they can get out of it. It's a selfish motivation, usually performed so one can think "more highly of themselves than they aught to".

Notice this doesn't mean that someone is in sin if they've labored for something that was of their own desire. If a person's dream has been to buy a piece of land to open a business and they labor for the realization of that dream, that is not "searching for on behalf of ones self". The only way it could be, is if their intent is to look down upon their friends and neighbors for their not doing the same; but this isn't usually the case. Most people following a true passion are too focused on that passion to concern themselves with what their neighbors are doing or not doing with their own lives. If a person finds they are constantly comparing their own labors to the perceived "lack of labor" of those around them, than they are not acting out of charity.

I used this example above to illustrate the difference between self centered searching and a searching that fulfills a passion, because Jesus did labor to fulfill a passion. The "reward" he received was those he came to redeem and his desire for them/us could be thought of as "selfish" in and of it's own right. The difference is, that Jesus's motivation was not that he rank above anyone in the performance of that task. That position of esteem is eventually what befell him in the end, but his motivation was love, not the desire of attaining that position.

* * *

**Charity is not easily provoked**: This is another phrase that looks on the surface like it means something other than it actually does. The most common interpretation is that charity is not easily angered. The example given in [a church I'd once attended] was of a husband critical of a wife because things weren't "just perfect". Although I agree, someone quickly losing their temper for something as trivial as the meal not prepared exactly as they think it should, is not showing love; but that isn't what this Greek phrase means.

Taking the example of Jesus, we see there were things that "set him off" pretty quickly; but he was never angered over trivial things and needless to say, neither should we be. He was never angered over people who disrupted his schedule (in the course of the hour I've spent writing this segment; my son has probably interrupted me at least 2 dozen times) or did things differently than he would have. Those who really "tripped Jesus's trigger" were those who self-righteously did things unjustly or immorally.

What this word really means is **"to be near competition"** At it's base the word is "Athleto" in which we get our word "athletics"; meaning a forum where those who are well versed in a physical skill go up against each other to see who is the best. Love does not do this in the sense of the spiritual realm. Love does not compete for the favor of God by proving it's superiority over another human being. It's tied to the example given above of someone's improper concern over the labor (or their perceived lack of labor) of someone else.

Notice though too, that this is not saying that it's unloving to compete; since competition is a part of life. We compete in the marketplace for the best goods and services. We compete with ourselves to better ourselves. We compete against the elements to survive. As a carpenter; Jesus competed against other common men with the quality of his services or crafted items, for the business of the community in order to survive in a commerce driven economic system. Because we know this, now we can be certain this passage is talking about competition in order to earn the favor of God.

Now what did this look like as it played out in the life of Jesus. The first thing I must point out is Jesus's attentiveness to anyone who approached him. Now this sounds like a simple skill and one that we all should attain easily too, but imagine the Son of God with His/his divine nature and lack of sin, giving a careful ear to common men. Now of course we know Jesus didn't do this because he believed he needed to learn some spiritual lesson from any of us. No, of course any wisdom he needed he could easily access from the Father. Much to the contrary, Jesus attentiveness came out of the knowledge that the Father could reveal anything to anyone and that hidden wisdom could pop out of anybody's mouth at any given time.

_For example: _

I worked in a group home and on some mornings when the residents were getting ready to go to program; I'd pose trivia questions to them. There was one woman named Eleanore; she was in her 70's, mildly mentally retarded and suffered from bi-polar disorder as well as a heart problem. When ever she'd have to have her medication tweaked, she'd come to the staff, and some of the residents and ask us to pray for her. Than she'd walk off mumbling her simple understandings of God to herself and Him (Eleanore talked to herself a lot). Even to this day, I really think Eleanore was a believer.

Well, one day on our trivia quest; I asked her what was Jesus's occupation. I was expecting her to say "carpenter" when she suddenly blurted out "Savior! That was his job. He was Savior." Her answer took me by surprise because it wasn't the answer I was looking for, nor was it the answer I expected her to give. I stopped and looked at her a minute (probably much like Jesus did with the Canaanite woman) and told her that her response wasn't the answer I was searching for, but that she was absolutely right. She was grinning from ear to ear and than just dismissed me with a wave of the hand and walked away mumbling "See, see, I know who He is!" while I just laughed. She was right, here was a good example of a piece of wisdom that just pops out of an unexpected place at any given time.

Love not being "near to competition" means that in either scenario (Eleanore and I or Jesus and the Canaanite woman) the party who was expected to "know more" (Jesus because he was the Son of God, or I because I am not mentally retarded) is not angered by simple truth that pops out of unexpected places. Love is not a competition of who knows more and that even the well learned rejoice in the truth, no matter what the source is. In the case of Eleanore and I, it's probably safe to say that I simply underestimated her understanding of things based on my knowledge of her and her cognitive handicap. In the case of Jesus though, he'd actually found truth "where it wasn't suppose to be". This heathen woman was not suppose to be the bearer of that sort of wisdom, since up until that time, wisdom was passed from God Almighty through the law and the prophets of the Hebrew nation.

On the flip side of this, he who is the disseminator of truth does it with the motivation of setting the listener free, not proving him wrong. There is an incredible amount of freedom bestowed upon us when we understand the true meaning of the Scriptures and how they release us from patterns of behavior or thought that we confine ourselves to on account of an immature belief that our prescribed set of ideals are "more Godly" than the common every day thoughts that drift through our minds.

A good example of this is when I was at a "woman's lighthouse aglow" dinner. I described to another professed Christian participant, a science fiction story I am writing. She was interested in the story line of my going back in time to the first century and encountering the characters of the gospels in the few days just before the crucifixion. I was telling her of the comparisons I was making in the story of first century life as opposed to the middle east of the Gulf War and she told me she wanted to read the book when I was finished. I warned her that the story was not neat and pretty or romanticized and than began to describe a scene to her

In the story I'm following Jesus down a road headed to someone's house. He's completed his preaching in the temple and was hiding himself from the crowds. So here we were walking down this rather isolated road in the middle of no-where looking rather inconspicuous. In the story I'm making mental notes of how the middle east hasn't changed much in 2000 years when I notice Jesus veer off the road and squat over a ditch to urinate. I sort of chuckled because that's exactly what the Bedouins did in the desert during the war.

When I told this woman of that part of the story; she got all offended. She said she didn't want to read anything in the story that "dishonored her Lord". I only looked at her and asked how going to the bathroom dishonored Christ? She launched into a monologue of how He is God and He is Holy and Righteous etc. etc. Even so, he was still a man and lived as we all do. At that point, I told her she really didn't want to read the story because there are things in it far more graphic than Jesus squatting by the side of the road.

I used this illustration of truth setting us free because in this context, the truth is Jesus was still human. The fact that he abided in all of the most simplest aspects of being human and did so without sin, shame, hang-ups and "with honor"; lets us see a little more clearly what actually is sin and what isn't. Jesus's humanness puts what it means to be Holy and Righteous in a different light. It lets us grasp Holiness in everyday earthly life and gives us a more well rounded understanding of who God really is. Jesus's human body literally made God that much closer to us, more real, tangible and alive.

One time, [in a church I'd once attended] a question was posed "What do you love most about Christ"? To this I'd answer "his humanness". When many people are prone to believing our flesh and bone are what is guilty of sin; I'm reminded that it's actually my own body that connects me most intimately to the experience of God. Both God and I have existed out of the very same earthly substance. We've both held the same elements in our hands and those hands themselves are composed of the very same elements they've come in contact with everyday. God and I are much more similar than we are different in the earthly physical experience and that (to me) is not only humbling, but extremely comforting.

* * *

**Thinks no evil**: This phrase too looks quite simple until we attempt to define what exactly it is to "think evil". Evil, in and of it's-self is easy to define; but to "think evil" is not so easy to define, because what is "evil" is known by actions and thoughts are not actions. This is why God said to Cain when he was angry at Able that "sin lies at your door". Cain at that point was not (as of yet) in a premeditated state of sin, he was reacting out of feelings of rejection.

Premeditated sin (sin of intent where thoughts cross the line because they are conceived by a motivation that is amiss it's-self) is an altogether different matter because it's (more often than not) accompanied by actions who's sorrow (if sorrow is even produced) is not genuine. Genuine sorrow is true guilt over the wrong that was done and also over the fact that the wrong was wrong and offended God. False sorrow is only the sorrow of being caught and exposed. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisee who posed the question about adultery that "any man who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart". Jesus was pointing to a motivation that was amiss.

So what does "think no evil" mean if it's not talking about thoughts emanating out of an emotional reaction as opposed to thoughts of premeditated sin. The Phrase in the Greek means **"does not inventory intrinsically worthless items."** It gives the connotation that these "items" are things of no value in an earthly or spiritual realm.

Now thoughts of premeditated sin actually fit into this category quite well. Going back to the example of Cain and Able we see that the first reaction of Cain was an emotional response to being rejected. These feelings weren't counted as sin, but the reasoning behind them and the manifestation of the sin in Cain's heart (which resulted in killing Able) is the "inventorying of the intrinsically worthless items". God asked Cain "if you do well; will you not be accepted also?" Cain didn't take that instruction "to heart" so to speak; so this exposed that his motivation in obtaining favor was amiss. After Cain had killed his brother, we see that he was not sorry for the wrong he'd done on account of it being inherently morally wrong. No, he was only sorry on account of the fear of the punishment he was to receive.

How does this differ from thoughts that are often perceived as sin, but are not sin because they are set in an instance where someone has become a victim of the sin of another. Is the rage the family of a murder victim feels an "intrinsically worthless item" in the eyes of God? Are they "thinking evil" if they wish the perpetrator(s) be punished for the crime they've committed? The answer is; of course not! We know this by all the passages in the Scriptures that are prayers for God to enact vengeance on behalf of those who have been treated unjustly.

Of course there are those who would try to equate these prayers for recompense as sin themselves, but if we look at the fact that all Scripture has some application to Christ; we see this is an erroneous conclusion. Jesus most certainly fell victim to the sin of others and these prayers for the punishment of the wicked are cries of pain out of the depth of his soul for the wrongs committed against him. (In addition to the atonement he was securing.) Now was he sinning for wanting to see the injury he suffered accounted for? Of course not! God by the nature of who He is, loves righteousness and justice; so it shouldn't surprise us that these attributes were so imbedded in the fabric of Jesus's human psyche. It also shouldn't surprise us when we encounter the same feelings. Anger over a genuine wrong is part of being made in the image of God.

* * *

**Rejoices not in iniquity****: **Here is another phrase that looks simple on the outside but really is far more profound than the English rendering leads us to believe. The example of this given in [a church I once attended] was the Palestinians cheering over the world trade center attacks. When I heard this parallel made in a sermon, the first thing I thought of was my own reaction to the fall of Saddam's regime in Iraq. (I was in the Good Will store cheering along with the Iraqis on the news.) The next image that popped into my head was of the celebrations in the streets of New York City when it was declared Hitler was dead and the Second World War was over. I began to wonder at how the behavior of both peoples in either circumstance was the same, but what made the Palestinians reactions sin and ours not?

When I got home and started studying the Greek phrases; I discovered what this "rejoices not in iniquity" really means. The phrase could be translated **"Does not cheerfully greet injustice or moral depravity".** It bears the connotation that somebody embraces the known wronging of another and the moral depravity associated with that. This is more akin to a sociopath's behavior than what has been deemed as "the mob" in "mob mentality".

Often times when "mob mentality" produces injustice and moral depravity the mob is indeed being lead by sociopaths, but the common person in the mob would not engage in the behavior without the influence of the mob or the presence of the sociopaths that lead the commission of the crimes. We can see this because when the event has ended and the deeds have been exposed the common "go along Joe" is usually relieved, even if he is involved in the reprimand that resulted from the original event. The sociopaths on the other hand are unrepentant because by definition, they have no conscience.

Now when I looked at this and compared me and World War Two to the Palestinians; I could see that on one level we all fell into the same category. The rejoicing was not in injustice or moral depravity; the rejoicing was in the conquering of that. The difference between me and the Palestinians was that their perception is based in part on propaganda. For them, the original injury was removing them from a plot of land and giving it to another people. The injustice was our failure to hear them out on the manner. Their frustration produced a breeding ground rife for the sociopaths in their culture to employ propaganda that only resulted in commission of crimes against people unrelated to their original injury.

In their eyes, an equivalent would be China coming to the United States, taking the east coast from us (kicking some of us out of our homes) and giving it back to the British. Now of course those that settled here and fought hard to kick the British out are fighting with the Chinese because they believe this is their land. Suddenly along come the American Indians (the original "owners" of the land) who start blowing everything up they can get their hands on. Years pass and with no end to the conflict in sight; the now furious American Indians start going over the China and blowing up buildings in Beijing. What a mess huh!

Of course anyone who looks at this conflict objectively can see the sin of all parties involved, but only a handful of individuals who've perpetuated the conflict actually fall into the category of those who "rejoice in iniquity". The parallel can be seen in the trial of Jesus. The Romans were "the authorities" the people were "the mob" and the leaders of Israel were the "sociopaths who lead the mob". All three parties were guilty of sin, but only the "sociopaths" are actually the ones "rejoicing in iniquity".

* * *

**But rejoices in the truth**: Here is another phrase that's kind of strange when we look at the Greek words. This portion of the sentence "rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth" means to **"gladly sympathize with that which is not concealed"**. Obviously the two phrases are coupled together because their meanings play off of each other. The opposite of "cheerfully greeting injustice or moral depravity" is to "sympathize with that which is not concealed".

Drawing from the practical application I used before; the sympathizing with that which is not concealed acknowledges the great sorrow, sacrifice and betrayal of the victims of any given conflict. When the knowledge came out about the Holocaust, those who "rejoiced in the truth" listened to the victims stories. Likewise, I felt the triumph of the Iraqi people as the nation survived Saddam. Yes it is wrecked and wounded but lives on. Moreover, anyone who lends ear to the cry of the innocent Palestinian, will hear a plea for justice.

In the case of Jesus, "that which is not concealed" was the truth about him. It was a truth so profound that not even a tomb could hold it. The greater point of any of this; (Piolet and the high priest, World War Two, Iraq, or the Palestinians) is the ability to God to use the messes we create and transform them into a higher good. I stated in the beginning of this study that the power and attributes of God are really what the phrases in this passage are all about; seeing how that's where being "born again" originated from. Now as I move into the last four phrases, this truth will become abundantly clear!

* * *

**Bears all things, Believes all things, Hopes all things, Endures all things:** I've lumped these four together because they convey a single continual truth. These four phrases "sum up" the attributes of God that are first laid out in the previous sentences. These are the "icing on the cake" that speak most specifically to the truth of the gospel.

Starting from the end, we see that "all things" of these four phrases means **"the whole of" **Charity bears the whole of, believes the whole of, hopes the whole of and endures the whole of. Again, the transliteration looks a little weird, until we begin looking at the individual words.

**Bears all things**: The word "bear" here is derived from a construction term meaning **"to thatch or deck over"**. It's most commonly used in the context of the roof of a house, meaning that which is thatched (by straw) or decked (by wood) over. It's the covering of an object or a building. "Charity covers the whole" is what this phrase really means. Now what does it "cover the whole of".

The first conclusion we'd be inclined to jump to is that charity covers the whole of sin; (or covers the whole of an individuals sin - which is true) but I'm not so sure the application is that narrow. The reason I believe this is because of the following three phrases. The "whole" I believe this word is talking about is the entirety of the truth. It's speaking of the whole of the gospel, redemption, salvation, atonement, retribution, punishment, heaven, hell, Father, Son, Holy Spirit; the entirety of the witness. The "whole" is all that the book testifies of. Charity covers the whole.

**Believes all things:** This word means **"to have assurance in"** or **"to put trust in the whole". **Charity trusts and has assurance in the whole. The whole again here, I think is a reference to the entirety of the message. Charity throws all it's trust into the completeness of God. Charity believes the whole of the gospel.

**Hopes all things**: This means **"to have joyful anticipation of the whole"**. Charity joyfully anticipates the completion of all. It waits patiently for the redemption and transformation of the created order. One abiding in the love of God joyfully anticipates the day when they will know Him as well as they are known by Him.

**Endures all things**: Charity **"abides under and is contained in the whole"** This is the phrase that eludes to the fact that charity walks in obedience. Charity follows God where ever He leads and longs to know that he/she has pleased God in the choices, the labor and especially the attitudes these tasks are performed with.


End file.
